Both of these guys are proteins and related to other enzymes that function in the body. I've linked an article for you that shows how egg and sperm have coevolved. Once again, this is a non-issue as far as being any sort of problem for the general notion of evolution.

What are their other functions in the sperm cell? And the article mentions receptor proteins, not the breakdown of the zona pellucida, which is what my argument is about.

There have been no responses to my long post regarding the evolution of multicellular life, the deuterium concentratrion in comets, the formation of branching tubes in the circulatory system, the descendants of the platypus, and the sorting of the majority of fossils by density.

There have been no responses to my long post regarding the evolution of multicellular life, the deuterium concentratrion in comets, the formation of branching tubes in the circulatory system, the descendants of the platypus, and the sorting of the majority of fossils by density.

This is a little thing i like to call figurative language. Your source severely mistranslates the Bible in an effort to prove it is wrong. The passages you have cited are not commonly translated like this. This just shows a misunderstanding of the Bible. Many of these words have multiple meanings and do not imply a flat earth. And in no place have i changed my tune to say they mean something else. This has been my stance from the beginning.

And your stance has been wrong from the begining. Your problem is that you don't think like a primitive bronze age sheep herder! You have the benefit of SCIENCE to see how silly a flat earth and the sky being a giant metal bowl covering it. But 3, 4000 years ago, this is what everyone believed. Figurative language my ass...

This is a little thing i like to call figurative language. Your source severely mistranslates the Bible in an effort to prove it is wrong. The passages you have cited are not commonly translated like this. This just shows a misunderstanding of the Bible. Many of these words have multiple meanings and do not imply a flat earth. And in no place have i changed my tune to say they mean something else. This has been my stance from the beginning.

That's wishful thinking on your part. At the time the Bible was written it was a common belief that the earth was flat, and the center of the universe. Why do you think it was such a big deal when Copernicus suggested otherwise?

There were some earlier Greek thinkers that proposed that the earth was a sphere. But the flat earth model was more prevalent through ancient times - including with the writers of the Bible.

from Fencer27 at 11:08 PM on July 31, 2009 So you believe in UFO's, the Loch Ness monster and theory of Atlantis? America needs to get more edumacated. Although I can't help but be entertained by some of the media spin offs of things like this.

no that is not what i am saying we dont realy belive in it at least not every body and its not a media spin of its a nice little story that people like to belive in in a fake way thay dont realy belive it like i sead befor its a nice little tale to have fun with.

I just got back from Destin FL. As I was looking at shells on the beach, I saw all the different patterns--some almost geometrical. No one would ever assume they were rocks though they are made of minerals, because they are not homogenous in design--even sedimentary which are layered are seen as not produced by animals or plants.

That being said--one can easily see the

1)ORDER, ORGANIZATION, AND SEPARATION in all organisms that is much more complex than a shell--which is designed by an organism.

2)MECHANISMS in living things--such as the electron transfer chain in the mitochondria, which is nothing less than a 3 PART electrical gradient pump and produces ATP. Without it's design we would not exist. Nothing so complex could ever "just happen."

3)ENZYMES which virtually put us together, and keep us together in every facet from digestion to DNA RNA transcription, translation, as well as every cellular function.

ENZYMES MAKE PROTEIN BUT THEY ARE PROTEIN SO HOW DID ABIOGENESIS PRODUCE THE FIRST DNA AND THE ENZYMES THAT SPLIT, REPRODUCE, AND REPAIR IT AT THE SAME TIME. IT TAKES ENZYMES TO MAKE ENZYMES!!!

4)THE POWER OF THE WORD. The word of God changes your heart when you accept it in meekness. Jesus said "If you DO my will, you will KNOW the doctrine which I teach." Conversely if you don't DO his will, you CAN NOT understand His doctrine.

TO many people, their faith is merely mental assent to what is taught at church. It has no dunamis power spoken of by Peter in Acts 2, so they are easily moved away from the HOPE of the Gospel, and submit to man's philosophies, scientific interpretations without much of a fight at all. Very sad!

How did the first DNA and the many compatible enzymes (along with everything else) occur at the same time and place in history to make the first reproducible life?

they evolved from simpler precursors. haven't you read anything on abiogenesis?

It doesn't happen in empirical science and hasn't even with intelligent manipulation. Therefore you have no empirical evidence, so abiogenesis is a BELIEF

Don't understand science, do you... It is a hypothesis with growing evidence.

Yours is a faith that one day we will do it. Well even if you could it will have given evidence for intelligent design, because man did it.

this is one of the stupidest creationist arguments. Are you telling us trhat any natural event we recreate in a lab is evidendce of intelligent design???? If this is your belief, you truely don't understand science.

Yes, I have read about Stanley Miller. But I would really rather spend my time on the facts of empirical science in cell biology, biology or geology.

What precursors--precursors to protein are amino acids. Globular protein is water-soluble. Along with the fact that no one would ever store protein in water--it will break down or denature.

Because an argument is repeated does not refute it's logic. Design has design features i.e. organization whether it is by man or other means. it means it was guided by intelligence. Science can not separate itself from logic or philosophical principles. Especially since it has it's roots in philosophy.

Because an argument is repeated does not refute it's logic. Design has design features i.e. organization whether it is by man or other means. it means it was guided by intelligence. Science can not separate itself from logic or philosophical principles. Especially since it has it's roots in philosophy.

(Edited by AFJ 8/2/2009 at 4:48 PM).

An repeating an argument does not make it valid either.

Because something is organized does not mean it was created by intelligence, or do you think little faeries make snowflakes?

Snowflakes are crystals and are based on chemical composition of water. Is this a mechanism or complex machinery or symbiotic relationships which we see in life? The issue is the complexity of life and the plausibility of life arising and even changing through natural means alone.

Because sodium and chlorine react to form salt does not mean that DNA and enzymes can suddenly emerge with all the other cellular materials at the same time to produce life. Man can do the first, but not the second.

As for philosophy, evolution enters into origin of life, which has metaphysical possibilities. The origin of a snowflake, on the other hand, is an empirical law of chemistry, not a theory of a historical science that does not have many of the facts.

Quote from AFJ at 4:27 PM on August 2, 2009 :Snowflakes are crystals and are based on chemical composition of water. Is this a mechanism or complex machinery or symbiotic relationships which we see in life? The issue is the complexity of life and the plausibility of life arising and even changing through natural means alone.

DNA and snowflakes both form by chemical interactions. If you think there is some other salient means operating at the molecular level, then please specify it.

Quote from AFJ at 4:27 PM on August 2, 2009 : Because sodium and chlorine react to form salt does not mean that DNA and enzymes can suddenly emerge with all the other cellular materials at the same time to produce life.

RNA is most likely the precursor to DNA. It is a protein and an enzyme.

Quote from AFJ at 4:27 PM on August 2, 2009 : As for philosophy, evolution enters into origin of life, which has metaphysical possibilities. (Edited by AFJ 8/2/2009 at 5:32 PM).

Whatever metaphysical issues, if any, are related to evolution they have are of no consequence from a scientific perspective.

Of course, each of us as individuals can muse about metaphysical issues related to science, but that's different than those issues being relevant to science.

DNA and snowflakes both form by chemical interactions. If you think there is some other salient means operating at the molecular level, then please specify it.

RNA is most likely the precursor to DNA. It is a protein and an enzyme.

Whatever metaphysical issues, if any, are related to evolution they have are of no consequence from a scientific perspective.

Of course, each of us as individuals can muse about metaphysical issues related to science, but that's different than those issues being relevant to science.

Sorry, still trying to figure quote function. not used to it.

Yes DNA and snowflakes form chemically, but this is quite an oversimplification. Our DNA contains 3 billion nucleic acids and contains a blueprint for all biological functions. Snowflakes are (frozen) crystallized water vapor. You are comparing the wheel to a rocket engine.

DNA is not an enzyme. How can RNA be a precursor to DNA when RNA is transcribed by enzymes from DNA? Have you read your cell biology?

As for your last point--I understand that metaphysical issues are not "relevant" to science though I prefer to say that natural science does not deal with the metaphysical.

However, one can use empirical evidence as well as personal testimony, which is allowed in in a legal setting, to observe the results of faith, prayer, and prophecy. So it is not TOTALLY or generally irrelevant. That is in street--there's more to it than a little black book and a steeple.

Quote from AFJ at 9:14 PM on August 2, 2009 :DNA is not an enzyme. How can RNA be a precursor to DNA when RNA is transcribed by enzymes from DNA? Have you read your cell biology?

We don't know the exact steps, but it is likely that RNA is the evolutionary precursor to DNA. One hypothesis is that through a series of mutations the protein generation capabilities of RNA were separated from the inheritance mechanism. It's certainly possible, but as you can imagine, difficult to test.

However, one can use empirical evidence as well as personal testimony, which is allowed in in a legal setting, to observe the results of faith, prayer, and prophecy. So it is not TOTALLY or generally irrelevant. That is in street--there's more to it than a little black book and a steeple.

Religious beliefs are irrelevant to the scientific process. So yes, any metaphysical musings are totally irrelevant to doing science.

We don't know the exact steps, but it is likely that RNA is the evolutionary precursor to DNA. One hypothesis is that through a series of mutations the protein generation capabilities of RNA were separated from the inheritance mechanism. It's certainly possible, but as you can imagine, difficult to test.

I imagine it is -I can imagine everything else as well. As long as we all know it's imagination we are talking about here.

-------Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”

We don't know the exact steps, but it is likely that RNA is the evolutionary precursor to DNA. One hypothesis is that through a series of mutations the protein generation capabilities of RNA were separated from the inheritance mechanism. It's certainly possible, but as you can imagine, difficult to test.

I imagine it is -I can imagine everything else as well. As long as we all know it's imagination we are talking about here.

But the difference between you or me and genetic scientists is that they test their ideas. Here's an example I found where a researcher (Joyce) was able to convert a RNA enzyme into a DNA enzyme.

Here's a snippet from Science Daily reporting on the research: "This "evolutionary conversion" provides a modern-day snapshot of how life as we understand it may have first evolved out of the earliest primordial mix of RNA-like molecules-sometimes referred to as the "pre-RNA world"-into a more complex form of RNA-based life (or the "RNA world") and eventually to cellular life based on DNA and proteins."

For more see: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060327083737.htm

From MustrumBut the difference between you or me and genetic scientists is that they test their ideas. Here's an example I found where a researcher (Joyce) was able to convert a RNA enzyme into a DNA enzyme.

Mustrum I found Joyce, I kept wondering why you were calling DNA an enzyme.

BACKGROUND: Several types of RNA enzymes (ribozymes) have been identified in biological systems and generated in the laboratory. Considering the variety of known RNA enzymes and the similarity of DNA and RNA, it is reasonable to imagine that DNA might be able to function as an enzyme as well.No such DNA enzyme has been found in nature, however.

All this is based on en vitro studies--not en vivo. DNA is not naturally an enzyme. Your theory is based on unguided mutations, so what are they proving by tinkering? If DNA were an enzyme it would be found naturally.

Quote from Demon38 at 6:17 PM on July 25, 2009 :Evidence for creation:Sexual relationships.This could not have evolved. For two members of a species to independently evolve a male and female reproductive system which will combine to produce offspring is impossible. There is no way sexual creatures could have evolved.

don't you ever get tired of being wrong? First of all, you don't understand evolution! Individual organisms don't evolve, only populations of organisms evolve! So your primary claim is already disproven! We see asexual reproduction, we see asexual organisms exchanging genetic material and reproducing and then we see sexual reproducition. Where is the barrier? Your primary claim is wrong because you didn't understand that single organisms don't evolve, so do you want to take another stab at it or admit you were wrong?

Mr. Demon,With all due respect, you're not getting off on a technicality. Technically he was wrong and you are right about evolution through populations. But don't ignore the logic of this argument.

1)Are there any plausible scenarios where the mutated precursors to sexual organs and reproductive systems would not be wiped out by natural selection? They would have not had a function--the same as a deformation.

2) How did the organs evolve? Did one population evolve female organs and another males, and then come together? Again you have the issue of NS in both groups.

3) How did the organs form to fit together so well by unguided mutation? Mathematically improbable and could be seen as a design feature.

1)Are there any plausible scenarios where the mutated precursors to sexual organs and reproductive systems would not be wiped out by natural selection? They would have not had a function--the same as a deformation.

What do you mean they would not have a function? Sexual organs are used for reproduction. And of course, as the evidence indicates, sexual organs co-evolve, so they would always be compatible and would never be selected against by natural selection. We've seen it, it happens, no problem for evolution.

2) How did the organs evolve? Did one population evolve female organs and another males, and then come together? Again you have the issue of NS in both groups.

They evolved from organisms that had both male and female reproductive organs, like we see today in many organisms. Your ignoring the evidence. Once male and female reproductive organs were established in each organism of the population, it became more advantageous for one to be exclusively male, and one to be exclusively femals. Where is the impossible hurdle? You and your fellow creationists keep trying to make the point that it isunlikely one part of the population would evolve male organs and the other half would evolve female organs. Your initial claim is incorrect because we see organisms that have both male and female organs in each individual.

3) How did the organs form to fit together so well by unguided mutation? Mathematically improbable

Once again, you are proceding form a faulty premise, they fit well together before there was even different sexes, when asexual organisms were exchanging genetic material. When more complex organisms arose, it was more advantageous to reproduce with sex, each organism had both sets of organs, so they could share there genetic material with another and both would produce offspring with a combination of both sets of genes. Again, you don't understand how evolution works.

Quote from AFJ at 8:29 PM on August 4, 2009 :From MustrumBut the difference between you or me and genetic scientists is that they test their ideas. Here's an example I found where a researcher (Joyce) was able to convert a RNA enzyme into a DNA enzyme.

Mustrum I found Joyce, I kept wondering why you were calling DNA an enzyme.

BACKGROUND: Several types of RNA enzymes (ribozymes) have been identified in biological systems and generated in the laboratory. Considering the variety of known RNA enzymes and the similarity of DNA and RNA, it is reasonable to imagine that DNA might be able to function as an enzyme as well.No such DNA enzyme has been found in nature, however.

All this is based on en vitro studies--not en vivo. DNA is not naturally an enzyme. Your theory is based on unguided mutations, so what are they proving by tinkering? If DNA were an enzyme it would be found naturally.

Here's the entire statement:BACKGROUND: Several types of RNA enzymes (ribozymes) have been identified in biological systems and generated in the laboratory. Considering the variety of known RNA enzymes and the similarity of DNA and RNA, it is reasonable to imagine that DNA might be able to function as an enzyme as well. No such DNA enzyme has been found in nature, however. We set out to identify a metal-dependent DNA enzyme using in vitro selection methodology. RESULTS: Beginning with a population of 10(14) DNAs containing 50 random nucleotides, we carried out five successive rounds of selective amplification, enriching for individuals that best promote the Pb(2+)-dependent cleavage of a target ribonucleoside 3'-O-P bond embedded within an otherwise all-DNA sequence. By the fifth round, the population as a whole carried out this reaction at a rate of 0.2 min-1. Based on the sequence of 20 individuals isolated from this population, we designed a simplified version of the catalytic domain that operates in an intermolecular context with a turnover rate of 1 min-1. This rate is about 10(5)-fold increased compared to the uncatalyzed reaction. CONCLUSIONS: Using in vitro selection techniques, we obtained a DNA enzyme that catalyzes the Pb(2+)-dependent cleavage of an RNA phosphoester in a reaction that proceeds with rapid turnover. The catalytic rate compares favorably to that of known RNA enzymes. We expect that other examples of DNA enzymes will soon be forthcoming.

So a DNA enzyme has not been found en vivo. When talking about abiogenesis you need to keep in mind that conditions on earth 4 billion years ago were different from what we find today. Life is different from what the first beginnings of life was back then. Perhaps DNA enzymes could form back then, but we don't find them today because life today has more efficient processes - eliminating the need for DNA enzymes.

Abiogenesis research is still in its early stages. But if you do some googling on what is being learned, you will see that nature does seem to have a pathway leading to the origin of life. Research in the area are gathering more clues every year.

We are learning that organic molecules commonly occur in space. Comets contain organics, water, and clay. Clay could have provided a substrate surface for more complex organic molecules to form. Current hypothesis suggest that RNA could have played an important initial role in the formation of life - with larger RNA molecules forming in acidic aqueous solutions.

They found that under favorable conditions (acidic environment and temperature lower than 70 degrees Celsius), pieces ranging from 10-24 in length could naturally fuse into larger fragments, generally within 14 hours....The researchers note that this spontaneous fusing, or ligation, would a simple way for RNA to overcome initial barriers to growth and reach a biologically important size; at around 100 bases long, RNA molecules can begin to fold into functional, 3D shapes.

Arguing that life today is too complex to have spontaneously formed is missing the point. It is like saying that the space shuttle is too complex to have been built from scratch. Of course it is. The long road leading to the space shuttle began over a hundred years ago with gliders, then powered flight by the Wright Brothers, and so on, along with a parallel development in rocketry.

Like the history of flight, life began with simpler forms, precursor molecules and precursor cells. The meshing of parts, with natural selection determining what was successful and what failed.

I imagine it is -I can imagine everything else as well. As long as we all know it's imagination we are talking about here.

Like an intelligent designer...

A designer just has to make far more logical sense than to imagine that design and order came from randomness and no intelligent organizer.Do bridges build themselves?

-------Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”

Arguing that life today is too complex to have spontaneously formed is missing the point. It is like saying that the space shuttle is too complex to have been built from scratch.

Of course you're using a false analogy or else you're making an obvious inference supportive of the creation point - no design happens spontaneously without an intelligent organizer which is always required. Time without intelligent organizer =nothing.

-------Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”

I imagine it is -I can imagine everything else as well. As long as we all know it's imagination we are talking about here.

Like an intelligent designer...

A designer just has to make far more logical sense than to imagine that design and order came from randomness and no intelligent organizer.Do bridges build themselves?

But this statement basically is a false analogy, you already start out with "Design". Basically you're saying, I assume this is designed, how can this structure, which is designed, not by made by a designer?

You're starting out with the assumption that something is designed, but give no support for this assumption.What if it "wasn't designed"?

Let's play a little game here, I'm going to post a series of rock pictures, and al though I have the sources and know if they are designed by man or nature, you don't. But you must have some way of recognizing design and order, you talk about it so much. So, which of these are man made and which of these are not.

In retrospect, I've played this game with about 10 friends of mine, and none of them got them right, actually, they all had it flat out wrong. So please don't cheat, it would be kind off streange if you have all of them correct :P

The evidence doesn’t indicate that anything evolves and to say that sexual organs do is begging the point. However if it were remotely possible, why would they separate and work together like that? ‘What were they thinking?’ (as Dr Phil would say)

they would always be compatible and would never be selected against by natural selection.

Why would some lose the male reproductive system while others lost the female reproductive system? It’s not like they were non-functional and ready to be cast off by natural selection as you’ve said yourself.

We've seen it, it happens, no problem for evolution.

I beg your pardon?

. Your ignoring the evidence.

Which evidence?

Once male and female reproductive organs were established in each organism of the population, it became more advantageous for one to be exclusively male, and one to be exclusively femals.

Why if they were managing quite fine together? Did the environment change? Why become dependant on another by splitting the systems up like that? Are you being serious? Is that what happened? I can hardly believe this!

Where is the impossible hurdle?

Why should this even possibly happen? Why, this is not even a plausible kind of a story, I’m afraid to say.

You and your fellow creationists keep trying to make the point that it isunlikely one part of the population would evolve male organs and the other half would evolve female organs. Your initial claim is incorrect

Don’t you mean ‘correct’?You’re trying to say that they developed together in order to get around the problem of how or why they would co-develop and just happen to co-operate functionally.

Once again, you are proceding form a faulty premise, they fit well together before there was even different sexes, when asexual organisms were exchanging genetic material.

So I would guess even those were created to work together…. Exchanging genetic material is not quite like the sexual reproduction of males and females. I really don’t think the transfer of genetic material in bacteria is quite up to the job of explaining those ‘later’ developments.

When more complex organisms arose, it was more advantageous to reproduce with sex, each organism had both sets of organs, so they could share there genetic material with another and both would produce offspring with a combination of both sets of genes.

You really make it sound like these forthcoming mutations were thinking and planning longterm. Don’t you find this a bit implausible?

Again, you don't understand how evolution works.

Have I heard that comment before? Is this déjà vu? Are you telling me that you understand how this happened? Does your plausible scenario constitute evidence in the absence of observable verifiable data? Is historical science the same as operational science or is historical science without written observations potentially the same as a fairy tale?

The whole story is not even plausible I’m afraid, it is just laughable. It makes me think of something I’ve heard before –nothing personal of course but it seems appropriate at this time.

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became like fools…’

-------Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”

But this statement basically is a false analogy, you already start out with "Design".

I'm inferring from previous experience here -if something has working co-ordinated parts, intelligence had to organize the parts to work together. I think evolutionists have it basically wrong to assume that no organization is needed when parts co-operate and work together.

You're starting out with the assumption that something is designed, but give no support for this assumption.

Individual parts working together need an organizer -this is our human experience. You would be going against your human experience to say that co-ordinated parts just happened to co-ordinate themselves and work together by chance.

What if it "wasn't designed"?

Well then it must have evolved -how do you support this assumption?

How does your assumption get accepted by 'science' when it is against normal logic - while mine that works according to logic gets rejected on an assumption that no organizer was needed for the organization of the parts?

So, which of these are man made and which of these are not.

I'd need to examine them more closely and possibly have more details -for example in the third one, what kind of material is making that pattern -if plant material then it might be either manmade or nature made but if it has an independantly verifiable pattern like for instance it is laid out to spell the word Help! then we know it was manmade as it is a highly improbable pattern. Number 4 could have been formed by raindrops in soft mud which later hardened or somebody could have made it. If it spelled out something in a language then we could say for sure that a human created it. I think this is the point of Dembski's explanatory filter -using probability and specification. You have to make inferences based on various filters. Anything alive is far too organized and co-ordinated to have happened by chance imho -if you think it could have happened by chance then that is your assumption but it is not the most logical one.

-------Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”

I'm inferring from previous experience here -if something has working co-ordinated parts, intelligence had to organize the parts to work together. I think evolutionists have it basically wrong to assume that no organization is needed when parts co-operate and work together.

I can understand this, if I see a painting, and specifically, if I've seen someone make a painting, I can say "well, see, this is a design, people made this"When I look at another painting, I can say it is designed based on the fact that I have seen such designs before, and have seen them being made.

There are apparent designs in nature though, that look like they are man-made, how do you know for sure if they are or aren't. If you haven't seen them being made?

What is your previous experience with the apparent creation of the world then?How do you make a difference between designed and not designed?

Individual parts working together need an organizer -this is our human experience. You would be going against your human experience to say that co-ordinated parts just happened to co-ordinate themselves and work together by chance.

Not really, if you look at chemistry, then putting parts in eachothers vicinity will create bonds, links and will create structures.The problem you pose, is with the word "Chance". You seem to push that there's only two possibilites, either:

1. It is all pure chance.2. It is a designer.

But you're missing out on the aspects of chemistry which aren't chance, which always react under specific conditions.

Under your condition of "chance", a snowflake would be near impossible, simply because if you calculate the "chance" of a structure like a snowflake coming together like that, it's nearly 0.

But you see, it's not chance that the properties of water under specific conditions lead to snowflakes all the time, it is chemistry.

And this is in simple words, how abiogenesis research is performed, the assumption is, that replicating molecules and life can form through chemical means, and they do research on this by putting chemicals under specific conditions and see what happens to them.

In effect, they try to figure out the conditions of earth at the point of the first formation of self replicating molecules. This is of course theoretical, we can't look back and say "We know it was like this". But what we can do, is figure out a possibility and say "this is what could have happened, our lab tests show it is quite possible through these means"

The problem is figuring out the exact conditions and chemicals though. yet so far they've managed to form a lot of compounds and structures simply by checking out various variables. Things like heat, pressure, pH and others provide means for chemical structures to bond, to break and to form in different ways.

Well then it must have evolved -how do you support this assumption?

How does your assumption get accepted by 'science' when it is against normal logic - while mine that works according to logic gets rejected on an assumption that no organizer was needed for the organization of the parts?

And what I explain also kind off answers this, no scientist can actually say there is no designer, this is true. But what they can say is "through chemical means, there is a possibility life arose through pure natural means".

This doesn't mean that there is no guidance behind those means, or that something designed the natural means though.

A lot of scientists for instance believe that the forces behind these chemical properties, were designed by god, and that lead to their properties and how they work.

Some say that god purposefully put them into place, or guided the process.

The real difference though, is that it isn't just "an assumption".A lot of evidence is found in chemistry experiments, that show a lot of complex molecules and structures, organizing themselves without much else than simply the right conditions.

So scientists are putting research in this, it's an assumption that has research done in the field. Research that has given more and more results in the right direction.

Many structures have been found, but the self replicating molecule has not yet been found.

So yeah, it's not a pure assumption.

I'd need to examine them more closely and possibly have more details -for example in the third one, what kind of material is making that pattern -if plant material then it might be either manmade or nature made but if it has an independantly verifiable pattern like for instance it is laid out to spell the word Help! then we know it was manmade as it is a highly improbable pattern. Number 4 could have been formed by raindrops in soft mud which later hardened or somebody could have made it. If it spelled out something in a language then we could say for sure that a human created it. I think this is the point of Dembski's explanatory filter -using probability and specification. You have to make inferences based on various filters. Anything alive is far too organized and co-ordinated to have happened by chance imho -if you think it could have happened by chance then that is your assumption but it is not the most logical one.

So why don't you examine the scientific experiments and data concerning self replicating molecules, chemistry and abiogenesis more closely?

The experiments they form, are a lot lot lot smaller then the patterns on those rocks for instance, yet you have no problem shaking your head to those, while these big rocks push you to ask for more information.

These rocks are also not nearly as complicated as the scientific experiments performed by scientists in search of self replicating molecules, or the research in general in that field.

Number four for instance, is actually man made. You give a naturalistic explanation that could explain how those structures were formed, but in this case, they were man made.

You also say if you found a language on a rock, it would be very easy to say it was man made, and I agree.But only if you know the language, or know that it is actually a language.The rock in picture four is a man-made piece of art that actually was used as a sign for the people in that age, it marked a spiritual location a sacred ground so to speak, and the pattern made sure everyone knew. Or so experts say :P

But this puts us back at the original argument, you can define design only because you know what is actually designed, because you've seen it designed, you recognize it from previous experience.

So how can you say that life is designed for instance, if you have no previous experience of it, why is it designed. Don't say it's logical, because you've just shown that it's not about logic.So what pushes you to say it is designed.

All this is based on en vitro studies--not en vivo. DNA is not naturally an enzyme. Your theory is based on unguided mutations, so what are they proving by tinkering? If DNA were an enzyme it would be found naturally.

The question you asked was, "How can RNA be a precursor to DNA when RNA is transcribed by enzymes from DNA?" What the authors of the research have shown is part of one possible solution for how DNA could have evolved from RNA. That's is what you asked for after all.

However, now you want to add the condition that we must observe the possible solution outside the lab. In other words, you appear to be intent on changing the nature of the question until it becomes impossible to answer.

Also, while mutations may be random, natural selection is not. In effect, evolution is not a random process.

A designer just has to make far more logical sense than to imagine that design and order came from randomness and no intelligent organizer.

And yet, science can show the mechanisms for how evolution works, reason and logic for why it happens and so much supporting evidence that the theory of evolution is the central organizing concept of modern biology and virtualy all biologists accept it as fact. Creationists, on the other hand, don't even have any evidence an intelligent designer exists. They have to avoid most of the evidence because it falsifies an intelligent designer. They rely on their ignorance, I don't understand it so it can't be true and the old standby, Goddidit.

But you're missing out on the aspects of chemistry which aren't chance, which always react under specific conditions.

Chance includes natural law like chemical attraction.

[

And this is in simple words, how abiogenesis research is performed, the assumption is, that replicating molecules and life can form through chemical means

The bias of naturalism. Christians are supposedly not allowed to start with a biased belief system, yet evolutionists may...because it's not a bias if you believe it?

yet so far they've managed to form a lot of compounds and structures simply by checking out various variables. Things like heat, pressure, pH and others provide means for chemical structures to bond, to break and to form in different ways.

As long as oxygen is excluded, any organic molecules prompted to form, will not break down too rapidly to be of any use in the OOL question. Presence of water is also a bad thing.

The real difference though, is that it isn't just "an assumption".

It is a big assumption if you look at the major problems with just the two above conditions as concerns the probability of formation of organic compounds.

A lot of evidence is found in chemistry experiments, that show a lot of complex molecules and structures, organizing themselves without much else than simply the right conditions.

The right conditions in a protected chemical lab. environment is really pretty different from a primitive earth environment wouldn't you say? Even with protected conditions, results are not great compared to what evos are needing.

So yeah, it's not a pure assumption.

You sound like you have just kind of convinced yourself but I am still skeptical about it not being pure assumption.

But this puts us back at the original argument, you can define design only because you know what is actually designed, because you've seen it designed, you recognize it from previous experience.

We recognize from previous experience that interconnecting parts working together need organization. Just because it is 'life' does not mean that the same principle cannot apply. That is unjustified bias.The explanatory filter of Demski's gives a good way of attempting to decide whether pure chance and/or physical law could have accomplished a result. Complexity vs specified complexity is worth looking into.

So what pushes you to say it is designed.

Way beyond probability; complicated organized interconnecting parts of life coded for by DNA and arranged for a purposeful function into nanomachinary way beyond our cleverest engineers.

Next time you look at a bird or a grasshopper or some simple insect crawling or hopping around, instead of thinking 'chance occurrence due to correct temp. pressure, environment etc'; think robotic programmed entity made from organic parts for a purpose in an ecological system. Entity made from same materials as other life forms in order that one may consume the other for energy requirements in order to keep robotic programmed material body functioning. It'll give you another perspective. To me the idea that a creator made all the original programs makes a lot of sense.

-------Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”

I noticed how you didn't respond to the "quote mine" bit, perhaps you agree with me, and you now think quote mining is a horribly bad practice, or perhaps you don't have the original sources and haven't read them at all, so you're just a secondary, quoting from creationist pages.

Please do elaborate, because I'm curious as heck.

Chance includes natural law like chemical attraction

This makes no sense, you're just making up your own idea just to fit your own Dogma.

If you have a specific chemical, and you have 100 separate batches of it. And you all subject it to the same conditions, then the result will be the same in all of them, exactly the same.

If you can call that chance, then you are making up a definition of chance that does not fit with the rest of the world.

But please, do enlighten us on how that chemical situation can be called "chance"

The bias of naturalism. Christians are supposedly not allowed to start with a biased belief system, yet evolutionists may...because it's not a bias if you believe it?

If you hadn't realized it yet, everyone started with the creationist belief in the past, but real scientists figured out something with observable experiments and evidence. That explained things differently.

We have supporting evidence, you guys don't, at least not scientifical evidence, blind bias is supposedly on the same level as scientifically supported bias now?

As long as oxygen is excluded, any organic molecules prompted to form, will not break down too rapidly to be of any use in the OOL question. Presence of water is also a bad thing.

So now you're answering a general statement with a precise refutation of what exactly ?

Of something I didn't say in the first place. Come now, why don't you answer what I say. Instead of trying to point out a flaw in something I didn't even say, who are you debating here?

It is a big assumption if you look at the major problems with just the two above conditions as concerns the probability of formation of organic compounds.

Have you even looked at any of the research, have you actually looked at some of the actual research or are you just copying what creationist websites tell you?

Because at one point, you call chemical reactions chance, and at the next point you're acting like you know something about them, seems pretty confusing to me.You get the basics wrong, and then suddenly you spurt into advanced chemistry, can you explain what you're trying to do here?

The right conditions in a protected chemical lab. environment is really pretty different from a primitive earth environment wouldn't you say? Even with protected conditions, results are not great compared to what evos are needing.

Thats what they're trying to replicate you know, the original conditions. Besides, we don't need to show how it happened exactly (as we don't need all the evidence to convict someone of murder in forensic science). We need to give a possible scenario that produces self replicating molecules.Nothing strange about that, if it's possible, then it doesn't matter how unlikely the lab scenario is to a possible real scenario in the past. It's possible, thats all there is to it.

You sound like you have just kind of convinced yourself but I am still skeptical about it not being pure assumption.

That's not really my fault, you have to actual read the scientific research on the topic to see that it's not just assumptions :P

The research won't read itself out loud to you, and creationist websites won't really give you a balanced view of it either.You want to actually convince yourself (Which I think you don't), then you have to do some of the work yourself, you have to grab the scientific articles, you have to read and if possible even apply them.

But you won't do that, you're scared of seeing how little assumption, and how much evidence there really is.

We recognize from previous experience that interconnecting parts working together need organization. Just because it is 'life' does not mean that the same principle cannot apply. That is unjustified bias.The explanatory filter of Demski's gives a good way of attempting to decide whether pure chance and/or physical law could have accomplished a result. Complexity vs specified complexity is worth looking into.

The explanatory filter is flawed though, there is so much information about false positives and problems with the filter that aren't accounted for. Problems that would cause false positives for instance.

You can keep talking about it, but the filter really doesn't work properly, if you know how science works, you'll know that a technique that easily can give false positives, well. It's not a technique you'll use.

Way beyond probability; complicated organized interconnecting parts of life coded for by DNA and arranged for a purposeful function into nanomachinary way beyond our cleverest engineers.

Maybe way beyond our cleverest engineers, but surely not beyond an explanation through evolution.It's very simple, if we have two choices:

1.Goddidit.2.It evolved through evolution.

And we can show a means through which it can have developped naturally through evolution.Then evolution wins, because you know what, Goddidit doesn't give us any further research. Goddidit doesn't give us any information at all.

There isn't even an actual intelligent design hypothesis or theory to test in the lab. It's basically pointing fingers and going "yeah, that looks complicated, prolly designed" and that is it, are you seriously saying that that is on the same level as scientists who actually perform experiments?

To me the idea that a creator made all the original programs makes a lot of sense.

That's nice, and you can believe what you want, but that doesn't make your belief scientific. If that was just the idea, if it just sounded like it made a lot of sense to people, that would be alright.But you're trying to label it as science without doing any science, without doing any research, without doing any lab work.

The evidence doesn’t indicate that anything evolves and to say that sexual organs do is begging the point.

Wrong, the evidence says all living things evolve. And the evidence is so overwhelming that the theory of evolution is the central, organizing concept of modern biology and 99.9%of the world's biologists accept this. So I don't know what point you're begging....

However if it were remotely possible, why would they separate and work together like that? ‘What were they thinking?’ (as Dr Phil would say)

You mean you don't even know what the theories of the evolution of seperate sexes are, yet you're saying they can't happen?? What you don't know could fill volumes....Look up the Red Queen hypothesis for one.

Why would some lose the male reproductive system while others lost the female reproductive system? It’s not like they were non-functional and ready to be cast off by natural selection as you’ve said yourself.

More efficient to have 2 seperate sexes when organisms become more complex. this is what we see in nature. Mating patterns have driven the evolution of sexual reproduction. why don't you do some research on the subject and come back when you can discuss it intellingenlty instead of your normal "I don't understand it so it can't be true" response.

I beg your pardon?

You don't have to beg, you're pardoned...

Which evidence?

The evidence for the evolution of sex. From here, for one example:Origin of sex

"We all came from hermaphrodites, organisms with both male and female reproductive organs. And though the origin traces back more than 100 million years, biologists have scratched their heads over how and why the separate male and female sexes evolved.

Now, research on wild strawberry plants is providing evidence for such a transition and the emergence of sex, at least in plants. And the results, which are detailed in the December issue of the journal Heredity, likely apply to animals like us, the researchers say.

The study showed that two genes located at different spots on a chromosome can cast strawberry offspring as a single sex, a hermaphrodite or a neuter (neither male nor female, and essentially sterile). The researchers suspect the two genes could be responsible for one of the earliest stages of the transition from asexual to sexual beings."

Read the rest of the article, gthis is just what you asked for.

Why if they were managing quite fine together? Did the environment change? Why become dependant on another by splitting the systems up like that? Are you being serious? Is that what happened? I can hardly believe this!

Of course I'm serious, this is what we see i nnature. Once again, your ignorance isn't evidence. You obviously don't understand anything at all about the evolution of seperate sexes and if you want to debate, you should at least know what your opponenets position is. You think just because you haven't a clue and lack the intellectual curiosity to research it, it can't be true. Grow up, stop being so afraid of evolution and reality.

Why should this even possibly happen? Why, this is not even a plausible kind of a story, I’m afraid to say.

You don't even know what the story is, how can you say it's not plausible?

Don’t you mean ‘correct’?

No I mean incorrect, as in wrong.

You’re trying to say that they developed together in order to get around the problem of how or why they would co-develop and just happen to co-operate functionally.

Not at all, male sexual reproduction evolved because it was beneficial for many reasons and we see all the stages in nature. Organisms evovled both male and female organs at the same time and evolved to have seperate sexes because, once again, it was beneficial. No "happened", no randomness involved.

So I would guess even those were created to work together…. Exchanging genetic material is not quite like the sexual reproduction of males and females. I really don’t think the transfer of genetic material in bacteria is quite up to the job of explaining those ‘later’ developments.

Why not? And why do we see organisms that reproduce both asexually and also by exchanging genetic material? Why do we see a progression. Why in the world would God give an organism 2 different ways of reproducing, seems kind of stupid to me for an intelligent designer to be so redundant.

You really make it sound like these forthcoming mutations were thinking and planning longterm. Don’t you find this a bit implausible?

Nope, that's how mutation and natural selection work.

Have I heard that comment before? Is this déjà vu? Are you telling me that you understand how this happened?

Yes you and your fellow creationists have heard this before, many times, because you don't understand evolution. Your ignorance isn't evidence.

The whole story is not even plausible I’m afraid, it is just laughable.

Of course it's plausible and supported by evidence. I don't know what scientific expertise you have to pronounce it implausible, especially when you don't even know what the theories are or how they are supported.

Ok i havent posted for awhile and ive missed alot of the previous posts.

Now if life evolved, there should be some organisms with right handed amino acids and some with left handed amino acids, but nearly all amino acids in living things are left handed. When amino acids form in nature, half are right handed and half are left handed. Why is this not true in living things?

Now if life evolved, there should be some organisms with right handed amino acids and some with left handed amino acids

Why?

Now if life evolved, there should be some organisms with right handed amino acids and some with left handed amino acids, but nearly all amino acids in living things are left handed. When amino acids form in nature, half are right handed and half are left handed. Why is this not true in living things?

"Although most amino acids can exist in both left and right handed forms, Life on Earth is made of left handed amino acids, almost exlusively. No one knows why this is the case. However, Drs. John Cronin and Sandra Pizzarello have shown that some of the amino acids that fall to earth from space are more left than right. Thus, the fact that we are made of L amino acids may be because of amino acids from space.Why do amino acids in space favor L? No one really knows, but it is known that radiation can also exist in left and right handed forms. So, there is a theory called the Bonner hypothesis, that proposes that left handed radiation in space (from a rotating neutron star for example) could lead to left handed amino acids in space, which would explain the left handed amino acids in meteorites. This is still speculative but our paper makes it much more plausible. In fact, this observations was one of the main reasons why we persued this research. Although there were theories about how the amino acids could form in space in the ice, no one had shown that it was viable to make amino acids this way, until now."

Quote from jango at 02:27 AM on August 8, 2009 :Ok i havent posted for awhile and ive missed alot of the previous posts.

Now if life evolved, there should be some organisms with right handed amino acids and some with left handed amino acids, but nearly all amino acids in living things are left handed. When amino acids form in nature, half are right handed and half are left handed. Why is this not true in living things?

Hi Jango,

They're going to tell you it happened on the backs of crystals that came from meteorites. There are more left handed than right handed amino acids in the debris. It crystallized and the way the acids stacked there was material with lefties on top of the crystals--which was the building blocks for abiogenesis.

Chemical reactions that make amino acids in nature are mixed lefty and righty so on earth there would have been reactions going on to make both, as there are now.

So it had to happen according to the evolutionists near meteorite debris, which one would think would decrease odds. But all you have to do is just say there were alot of meteorite hits--and estimate the ages of the debris at the same time as abiogensis.

God got a big sifter and sifted out the left forms before knitting them all together knowing that one day evolutionists that had no time for him would be asking these questions and making up all sorts of interesting answers to keep him entertained.

-------Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”

God got a big sifter and sifted out the left forms before knitting them all together knowing that one day evolutionists that had no time for him would be asking these questions and making up all sorts of interesting answers to keep him entertained.

I see you've given up on reality in full now. You're not even trying anymore.

I have not seen the fossil record, but I have read on it. There is dispute as to how "sorted" it is. Even the geologic strata are very very complex, sometimes "upside down" in places. Supposed older fossils are found above supposed younger fossils.

I take it by nucleic acids making proteins, you mean they are involved in making protein through transcription and translation.